Last week was my first week of classes for the 2008-2009 academic year, and I was all ready to write a post called "The Most Important Day of Class." The whole premise was that the first day of class is the most important day of class for the whole term. But I didn't write that post, because I decided I was wrong.
The first day of class is not the most important day of class. The second day is.
Here's what I mean. The first day is important, because on that day the prof is likely to explain what the course is intended to be like. You're also likely to be treated to a lecture on why the course is the most important course you will ever take in law school, and perhaps your whole life. I'm exaggerating, but not overly so. This is called selling the course--and it happens not only in electives, but also in mandatory courses. I certainly do it. I think it helps students see where the course fits in the grand scheme of things, and it gives them a sense of what I think of the subject and why I am teaching it. And I do hope it generates a little excitement to get us all through the drier parts of the course. (And if you are in law school, you know some of it is dry.)
But that first class is often an anomoly. It's on the second day that students are more likely to get their first glimpse of a more average class--no calling of the roll, no grand views of the law. Instead, it's on to theory, doctrine, and the briefing of cases.
So for those of you in law school, pay close attention in those early days. And mark your calendars for class #2.
Monday, 25 August 2008
Sunday, 10 August 2008
The Benefits of Senior, Junior, and Adjunct Law Faculty
There was an interesting post on the Law Librarian Blog this week concerning the benefits of senior, junior, and adjunct faculty in the classroom. The post can be linked to here. This is a subject that interests me greatly, and readers will remember that I recently wrote a law review article (in the BYU Education and Law Journal) about junior faculty teaching. You can link to my full article here, and to my previous blog posts on the article here and here. The latter post includes an exchange with UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge.
The long and short of it is that this Law Librarian Blog post reviews some of the current scholarship on law faculty teaching by senior, junior, and adjunct professors and provides some interesting commentary on this scholarship. Most interesting, perhaps, is the blog's observation that there seems to be little academic literature on the benefits of senior faculty teaching. Personally, I think this is because the common wisdom in the legal academy is that senior faculty are better teachers all around, so why write about it? I disagree with this view, however--and if you are interested in seeing why, look at my BYU article.
The long and short of it is that this Law Librarian Blog post reviews some of the current scholarship on law faculty teaching by senior, junior, and adjunct professors and provides some interesting commentary on this scholarship. Most interesting, perhaps, is the blog's observation that there seems to be little academic literature on the benefits of senior faculty teaching. Personally, I think this is because the common wisdom in the legal academy is that senior faculty are better teachers all around, so why write about it? I disagree with this view, however--and if you are interested in seeing why, look at my BYU article.
Sunday, 3 August 2008
Bainbridge v. Bowman
My law review article on junior law faculty, The Comparative and Absolute Advantages of Junior Law Faculty: Implications for Teaching and the Future of American Law Schools, 2008 BYU Educ. & L.J. 171, was commented on recently by Professor Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA School of Law. It's fair to say he did not like it--his post on the article can be linked to here and reads, in its entirety, as follows:
Via Paul Caron, I learned of Gregory Bowman’s article The Comparative and Absolute Advantages of Junior Law Faculty: Implications for Teaching and the Future of American Law Schools, 2008 BYU Educ. & L.J. 171, in which Bowman argues:
In the ongoing debate about how to improve law school teaching, there is a general consensus that law schools should do more to train junior faculty members how to teach. While this may be the case, this consensus inadvertently leads to an implicit assumption that is not true—that in all facets of law teaching, junior faculty are at a disadvantage compared to senior faculty. In fact, there are aspects of law teaching for which junior faculty can be better suited than their senior colleagues. This Article reviews scholarship concerning law teaching and identifies three teaching factors that generally favor junior law faculty: generational proximity to the law school student body; recency of law practice experience as junior practitioners; and lower susceptibility to the problem of conceptual condensation - extreme depth of subject matter knowledge that makes it difficult to see subjects from the students’ perspective.
This Article employs the economic concepts of (a) economies of scale or productive efficiency and (b) absolute and comparative advantage to suggest how these junior faculty advantages could be harnessed to improve law school teaching. With respect to productive efficiency, it is suggested that greater intra-faculty dialogue can increase a law faculty’s output of effective teaching. Currently, senior faculty members often provide assistance or advice to junior faculty in areas of senior faculty expertise or advantage—such as depth of knowledge in a course’s subject matter—but this is largely a one-way flow of information. However, if junior faculty were also to provide insight and advice to senior faculty regarding areas of junior faculty advantage, the quality of law school teaching might be significantly enhanced. Junior-senior faculty dialogue might be promoted through a variety of means, including faculty workshops and even perhaps teaching reviews of senior faculty by junior faculty.
With respect to the concepts of absolute and comparative advantage, this Article suggests that law school teaching could be improved through the specialization of teaching functions. Instead of professors individually teaching separate courses, professors might coordinate their teaching (that is, team-teach) across a number of courses in the law school curriculum, as a means to more effectively harness the respective strengths (and minimize the respective weaknesses) of junior and senior faculty in the classroom. Through the leveraging of junior faculty advantages, overall law school teaching might be significantly improved. This Article concludes by discussing the implications of these recommendations for law school culture in general and for the legal profession as a whole.
The trouble is that I don’t buy any of the alleged advantages Bowman says junior teachers possess. As for “generational proximity to the law school student body,” it often translates into difficulty for the young teacher to gain respect from the students. Anyway, it seems more relevant to dating than teaching. As for “recency of law practice experience as junior practitioners,” most law professors (at elite schools, anyway) come into practice with only a few years of practice experience. Being bottom man on a deal or litigation team fora couple of years doesn’t translate into meaningful knowledge. At best, it gives you a few war stories. Personally, I’ve learned a lot more that I use in the classroom from consulting than I ever did in practice. Since sniors likely have more consulting opportunities than juniors, this is at best a wash. Finally, as for “lower susceptibility to the problem of conceptual condensation - extreme depth of subject matter knowledge that makes it difficult to see subjects from the students’ perspective,” I’d rather know too much then too little. When I was just starting out, I lived in dread of the student question for which I had no answer. Today, it almost never happens.
Needless to say, I disagree with his critique, and I commented on his post as follows:
Thanks very much for the post about my BYU article. I appreciate your comments, and I have some thoughts in response.
First, with respect to generational proximity, you note that this “often translates into difficulty for the young teacher to gain respect from the students.” I agree with you. But this does not mean that understanding student mindsets better—due to generational proximity—is not an advantage. We accept the notion of generation gaps in our society, so why would this not have an effect in the classroom? As law professors, we are trying to reach an adult population of students who at times are disinclined to accept our views and the large workloads we impose in class. If junior professors understand student mindsets better, won’t that help counter that? I am not at all suggesting that more senior professors cannot do this just as well; rather, what I am saying is that as professors become more generationally distant from their students, it may take more active effort for them to stay closely tuned to student mindsets. And that is a comparative disadvantage—more input needed for the same output. In the article I discuss how this particular junior faculty advantage might be leveraged to improve law school teaching.
Your second criticism concerns the value of junior professors’ recent law practice experience. You point out, rightly, that “most law professors (at elite schools, anyway) come into [teaching] with only a few years of practice experience.” But I disagree with your judgment that that “being bottom man on a deal or litigation team doesn’t translate into meaningful knowledge.” For one thing, I learned a lot in my first two years as a corporate lawyer. For another, what will all of our students be when they get out of law school? Junior lawyers of one sort or another. So can’t junior practitioner experience help professors contextualize class material in a way that is relevant and accessible to students? And if a junior professor has done that very type of work within the past 5 years, rather than 20 or 30 years ago, won’t that resonate more with students? Again, this is not to ignore the many benefits of seniority or experience, and it is not to say that more senior faculty can’t work to keep their fingers on the pulse of modern junior associate practice. But they will have to work at it, and not come to it more naturally, as junior faculty often will do.
Third, regarding conceptual condensation, you simply note that you’d “rather know too much than too little.” I absolutely agree. Touting professorial ignorance as a virtue would be flat out dangerous, and I expressly disavow that in my article. But my point is not what we know as professors—the point is how effectively we convey that knowledge to our students. Knowing the answers to all student questions is a very different thing from being able to see issues from the level of student neophytes. I think many students have had professors in law school who were clearly brilliant but were hard to follow in class. And that was not because the students were all stupid. It was in many cases because professors were talking on a higher plane of knowledge than their students. Again, I am in no way saying that senior professors, with more depth of knowledge, cannot communicate effectively in the classroom. But I am saying that they are more likely than junior professors to take mental shortcuts that are clear to them but not to their students, and that they therefore will have to put more effort into guarding against that than junior faculty.
My article is, of necessity, dealing with generalities. But the one-way flow of information and feedback from senior faculty to junior faculty is a widespread characteristic of American law schools, and there is a casual dismissiveness of what junior faculty may have to offer in the classroom. If junior faculty as a whole bring particular teaching skills or strengths to the table—and I think they do—then we do ourselves and our students a grave disservice by ignoring this.
Thanks very much again for your post and your feedback.
Via Paul Caron, I learned of Gregory Bowman’s article The Comparative and Absolute Advantages of Junior Law Faculty: Implications for Teaching and the Future of American Law Schools, 2008 BYU Educ. & L.J. 171, in which Bowman argues:
In the ongoing debate about how to improve law school teaching, there is a general consensus that law schools should do more to train junior faculty members how to teach. While this may be the case, this consensus inadvertently leads to an implicit assumption that is not true—that in all facets of law teaching, junior faculty are at a disadvantage compared to senior faculty. In fact, there are aspects of law teaching for which junior faculty can be better suited than their senior colleagues. This Article reviews scholarship concerning law teaching and identifies three teaching factors that generally favor junior law faculty: generational proximity to the law school student body; recency of law practice experience as junior practitioners; and lower susceptibility to the problem of conceptual condensation - extreme depth of subject matter knowledge that makes it difficult to see subjects from the students’ perspective.
This Article employs the economic concepts of (a) economies of scale or productive efficiency and (b) absolute and comparative advantage to suggest how these junior faculty advantages could be harnessed to improve law school teaching. With respect to productive efficiency, it is suggested that greater intra-faculty dialogue can increase a law faculty’s output of effective teaching. Currently, senior faculty members often provide assistance or advice to junior faculty in areas of senior faculty expertise or advantage—such as depth of knowledge in a course’s subject matter—but this is largely a one-way flow of information. However, if junior faculty were also to provide insight and advice to senior faculty regarding areas of junior faculty advantage, the quality of law school teaching might be significantly enhanced. Junior-senior faculty dialogue might be promoted through a variety of means, including faculty workshops and even perhaps teaching reviews of senior faculty by junior faculty.
With respect to the concepts of absolute and comparative advantage, this Article suggests that law school teaching could be improved through the specialization of teaching functions. Instead of professors individually teaching separate courses, professors might coordinate their teaching (that is, team-teach) across a number of courses in the law school curriculum, as a means to more effectively harness the respective strengths (and minimize the respective weaknesses) of junior and senior faculty in the classroom. Through the leveraging of junior faculty advantages, overall law school teaching might be significantly improved. This Article concludes by discussing the implications of these recommendations for law school culture in general and for the legal profession as a whole.
The trouble is that I don’t buy any of the alleged advantages Bowman says junior teachers possess. As for “generational proximity to the law school student body,” it often translates into difficulty for the young teacher to gain respect from the students. Anyway, it seems more relevant to dating than teaching. As for “recency of law practice experience as junior practitioners,” most law professors (at elite schools, anyway) come into practice with only a few years of practice experience. Being bottom man on a deal or litigation team fora couple of years doesn’t translate into meaningful knowledge. At best, it gives you a few war stories. Personally, I’ve learned a lot more that I use in the classroom from consulting than I ever did in practice. Since sniors likely have more consulting opportunities than juniors, this is at best a wash. Finally, as for “lower susceptibility to the problem of conceptual condensation - extreme depth of subject matter knowledge that makes it difficult to see subjects from the students’ perspective,” I’d rather know too much then too little. When I was just starting out, I lived in dread of the student question for which I had no answer. Today, it almost never happens.
* * * *
Needless to say, I disagree with his critique, and I commented on his post as follows:
Thanks very much for the post about my BYU article. I appreciate your comments, and I have some thoughts in response.
First, with respect to generational proximity, you note that this “often translates into difficulty for the young teacher to gain respect from the students.” I agree with you. But this does not mean that understanding student mindsets better—due to generational proximity—is not an advantage. We accept the notion of generation gaps in our society, so why would this not have an effect in the classroom? As law professors, we are trying to reach an adult population of students who at times are disinclined to accept our views and the large workloads we impose in class. If junior professors understand student mindsets better, won’t that help counter that? I am not at all suggesting that more senior professors cannot do this just as well; rather, what I am saying is that as professors become more generationally distant from their students, it may take more active effort for them to stay closely tuned to student mindsets. And that is a comparative disadvantage—more input needed for the same output. In the article I discuss how this particular junior faculty advantage might be leveraged to improve law school teaching.
Your second criticism concerns the value of junior professors’ recent law practice experience. You point out, rightly, that “most law professors (at elite schools, anyway) come into [teaching] with only a few years of practice experience.” But I disagree with your judgment that that “being bottom man on a deal or litigation team doesn’t translate into meaningful knowledge.” For one thing, I learned a lot in my first two years as a corporate lawyer. For another, what will all of our students be when they get out of law school? Junior lawyers of one sort or another. So can’t junior practitioner experience help professors contextualize class material in a way that is relevant and accessible to students? And if a junior professor has done that very type of work within the past 5 years, rather than 20 or 30 years ago, won’t that resonate more with students? Again, this is not to ignore the many benefits of seniority or experience, and it is not to say that more senior faculty can’t work to keep their fingers on the pulse of modern junior associate practice. But they will have to work at it, and not come to it more naturally, as junior faculty often will do.
Third, regarding conceptual condensation, you simply note that you’d “rather know too much than too little.” I absolutely agree. Touting professorial ignorance as a virtue would be flat out dangerous, and I expressly disavow that in my article. But my point is not what we know as professors—the point is how effectively we convey that knowledge to our students. Knowing the answers to all student questions is a very different thing from being able to see issues from the level of student neophytes. I think many students have had professors in law school who were clearly brilliant but were hard to follow in class. And that was not because the students were all stupid. It was in many cases because professors were talking on a higher plane of knowledge than their students. Again, I am in no way saying that senior professors, with more depth of knowledge, cannot communicate effectively in the classroom. But I am saying that they are more likely than junior professors to take mental shortcuts that are clear to them but not to their students, and that they therefore will have to put more effort into guarding against that than junior faculty.
My article is, of necessity, dealing with generalities. But the one-way flow of information and feedback from senior faculty to junior faculty is a widespread characteristic of American law schools, and there is a casual dismissiveness of what junior faculty may have to offer in the classroom. If junior faculty as a whole bring particular teaching skills or strengths to the table—and I think they do—then we do ourselves and our students a grave disservice by ignoring this.
Thanks very much again for your post and your feedback.
* * * *
You be the judge--what do you, the reader, think?Wednesday, 30 July 2008
Gilbert says LU not giving up on law school plan
Tb News Source
Web Posted: 7/29/2008 8:12:25 PM
The president of Lakehead University is vowing to continue the fight after a major blow Tuesday to the plans to bring a law school to Thunder Bay.
The McGuinty government has announced it will not be funding any new law schools in Ontario for the foreseeable future. Fred Gilbert said LU will carry on its plans to renovate the former PACI, but he admits that opening a law school in 2010 is no longer a realistic possibility.
When LU and the Lakehead school board signed the $850,000 purchase agreement for PACI last month, things appeared to be looking up for the university's plans to open a law school in Thunder Bay but the plans have hit a major snag. Liberal MPP Bill Mauro says his government has received advice that there are enough law graduates in Ontario as it is. Therefore, LU and three other universities will not get any financial backing for their law school plans.
The president of the Thunder Bay Law Association, Stephen Wojciechowski, says his group is very disappointed by the province's decision. He says Thunder Bay and other small cities are approaching a crisis situation with their limited influx of new lawyers, and he says the legal resources in the Northwest are slowly dwindling to unacceptable levels.
Gilbert says the LU law school would have turned out 55 graduates each year with expertise in aboriginal law, natural resource and northern issues. Despite the setback, he says LU will move ahead will their plans to renovate PACI will still proceed trying to achieve accreditation for its law school curriculum.
Eight years ago, Gilbert and local politicians convinced the province to reverse a decision and allow a full four-year medical school at LU. Gilbert says they plan to do it again and Mauro said he's on board to help LU reach its goal, as he pledged in his 2007 election platform.
But for now, Gilbert concedes that the chance of the law school opening as planned in September 2010 is no longer a realistic goal.
The province has six southern Ontario-based law schools and a new one hasn't been opened in almost 40 years.
Web Posted: 7/29/2008 8:12:25 PM
The president of Lakehead University is vowing to continue the fight after a major blow Tuesday to the plans to bring a law school to Thunder Bay.
The McGuinty government has announced it will not be funding any new law schools in Ontario for the foreseeable future. Fred Gilbert said LU will carry on its plans to renovate the former PACI, but he admits that opening a law school in 2010 is no longer a realistic possibility.
When LU and the Lakehead school board signed the $850,000 purchase agreement for PACI last month, things appeared to be looking up for the university's plans to open a law school in Thunder Bay but the plans have hit a major snag. Liberal MPP Bill Mauro says his government has received advice that there are enough law graduates in Ontario as it is. Therefore, LU and three other universities will not get any financial backing for their law school plans.
The president of the Thunder Bay Law Association, Stephen Wojciechowski, says his group is very disappointed by the province's decision. He says Thunder Bay and other small cities are approaching a crisis situation with their limited influx of new lawyers, and he says the legal resources in the Northwest are slowly dwindling to unacceptable levels.
Gilbert says the LU law school would have turned out 55 graduates each year with expertise in aboriginal law, natural resource and northern issues. Despite the setback, he says LU will move ahead will their plans to renovate PACI will still proceed trying to achieve accreditation for its law school curriculum.
Eight years ago, Gilbert and local politicians convinced the province to reverse a decision and allow a full four-year medical school at LU. Gilbert says they plan to do it again and Mauro said he's on board to help LU reach its goal, as he pledged in his 2007 election platform.
But for now, Gilbert concedes that the chance of the law school opening as planned in September 2010 is no longer a realistic goal.
The province has six southern Ontario-based law schools and a new one hasn't been opened in almost 40 years.
Province lays down the law
Asearch through the Law Society of Upper Canada's directory shows there are 203 lawyers in Sudbury. Yep, that's right CCIII.
The Law Society of Upper Canada's membership data shows there are 38,879 lawyers in the province. (We won't trouble you with the Roman numerals.) Almost 1,500 new lawyers were called to the bar last year in Ontario.
A few in Sudbury aren't practising, a few are suspended, a few in the registry are deceased.
And while the North suffers from a chronic lack of professionals and specialists, with lawyers it is not because the province isn't churning out enough of them, it's largely because they don't settle here.
The argument made in favour of the medical school -- training doctors in the North, giving them a look at the lifestyle -- can reasonably be transferred to lawyers, since they must leave the area to enrol in one of Canada's 16 law schools (Ontario has six) to pursue their legal ambitions. But if the province is to put money into education, the legal profession, says Colleges and Universities Minister John Milloy, isn't a priority. He wants to focus on graduate studies and doctors.
We cannot disagree with those priorities.
Read the whole editorial here.
Ontario won't fund proposed law schools
The Ontario government says it has no money to train new lawyers, dashing the hopes of three universities in the province competing to open the first new law school in Canada in nearly 30 years. Plans for the new schools come from Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Lakehead University in Thunder Bay and Sudbury's Laurentian University.
All three universities looking to set up full law schools, including two in Northern Ontario, say they developed their proposals in response to local concerns about the lack of legal services and the need to attract young lawyers to rural areas.
But in a letter to university presidents last Friday, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities says it will not be approving any funding for new law schools in Ontario. The province's six existing law schools are meeting the demand for new lawyers, the letter says. As well, it says, the number of law-school graduates in Ontario exceeds the number of articling placements available.
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
Olympic hungry
Man, I have just loved keeping track of all of the Olympic trials, both for Canada and the US. Olympic time is my favourite time. I have gotten hyped during the summer every four years since 1984 when I watched the Olympics in my grandparent's living room. This year is even more exciting for me as my children are now getting to an age where they can start to appreciate some of the finer points of sports, and as they are now competing in sports themselves. Last night, my one daughter told me that she wants to be a doctor and an Olympian when she grows up. That really inspired me. Our swim team is called the Raymond Olympians, and both of my daughters are competing and my wife and I are coaching. Really cool. Really real.
I have also been getting in the water as much as possible, and my swimming is improving. Our family is all competing in a triathlon in August. I don't feel that I will be competitive at all, but I probably won't come in last place. I did a 10K in June that really hurt, but I was proud to have finished as I had not been training properly for weeks before the race, and I had woken that morning with aches and pains and a big headache. Work seemed to get in the way of training. Having my wife and daughters train for the triathlon is really inspiring and exciting for me. I have a bit of a cold/flu today, so training has taken a back seat again...at least for a few days.
I met with a fellow lawyer today at lunch, and was pleased to hear that my experience of seeing a decline in the amount of available work is not unique to my personal practice. He said that he is having to work harder to meet his own billable expectations. Those lawyers in Canada (especially sole practitioners) who think that the current state of affairs in the US and Canada is not going to affect them - they had better make sure that they are prepared, flexible and outgoing. Real estate has been the bread and butter for so many of us for a few years, but it's getting harder to rely on conveyancing to pay the bills...
It might be time to go do some more research into rainmaking tactics. Actually, my personal practice is thriving right now. Each month seems to bring an increase in client base and quality of work. There are some specific files that are bringing me great joy as I work on them. Further, I am getting better at firing those clients that I really do not appreciate working with. Also, each month I am gaining expertise in the areas that I am practicing in, and my confidence continues to grow. Each day brings its own challenges. It's not getting boring yet. This is the longest that I have held the same job (i.e. being a lawyer) in my life, I think. Well, that's not true - I was a lifeguard for many years, but that was usually part-time work, and I didn't really consider it a career. In any case, I feel I have reached a bit of a milestone in that my practice just passed its two-year anniversary (I opened my law firm the day after I passed the bar). Cool, huh?
I have also been getting in the water as much as possible, and my swimming is improving. Our family is all competing in a triathlon in August. I don't feel that I will be competitive at all, but I probably won't come in last place. I did a 10K in June that really hurt, but I was proud to have finished as I had not been training properly for weeks before the race, and I had woken that morning with aches and pains and a big headache. Work seemed to get in the way of training. Having my wife and daughters train for the triathlon is really inspiring and exciting for me. I have a bit of a cold/flu today, so training has taken a back seat again...at least for a few days.
I met with a fellow lawyer today at lunch, and was pleased to hear that my experience of seeing a decline in the amount of available work is not unique to my personal practice. He said that he is having to work harder to meet his own billable expectations. Those lawyers in Canada (especially sole practitioners) who think that the current state of affairs in the US and Canada is not going to affect them - they had better make sure that they are prepared, flexible and outgoing. Real estate has been the bread and butter for so many of us for a few years, but it's getting harder to rely on conveyancing to pay the bills...
It might be time to go do some more research into rainmaking tactics. Actually, my personal practice is thriving right now. Each month seems to bring an increase in client base and quality of work. There are some specific files that are bringing me great joy as I work on them. Further, I am getting better at firing those clients that I really do not appreciate working with. Also, each month I am gaining expertise in the areas that I am practicing in, and my confidence continues to grow. Each day brings its own challenges. It's not getting boring yet. This is the longest that I have held the same job (i.e. being a lawyer) in my life, I think. Well, that's not true - I was a lifeguard for many years, but that was usually part-time work, and I didn't really consider it a career. In any case, I feel I have reached a bit of a milestone in that my practice just passed its two-year anniversary (I opened my law firm the day after I passed the bar). Cool, huh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
